Who won in negotiations for baseball's labor agreement? Players or owners?

Both sides publicly would say it's a win-win, based on maintaining labor peace, figuring out how to divvy up a $7 billion industry and negotiating their desired provisions into the contract.

Let's look a little deeper.

One of Commissioner Bud Selig's priorities was to "fix" the June draft. Indeed, draft bonuses are expected to be lower because clubs, under the new rules, will be taxed and forfeit future selections if they spend beyond what's allotted in their pools of draft money.

Plus, draftees no longer can sign major-league contracts (only minor-league deals), and they must sign by mid-July, not mid-August, making it tougher to use enrolling in college as a bargaining chip. Spending limits were imposed on international players, too.

Union chief Michael Weiner negotiated away those things. But then again, amateurs aren't in his union, and big-leaguers certainly care more about their membership than their non-membership. If teams spend less on the draft, presumably, they'll spend more on union members.

So was it really a major concession by Weiner? Not really.

On the other hand, Weiner got a bunch in return, such as forcing owners to spend revenue-sharing checks on improving their clubs instead of paying down debt or simply pocketing the cash. Teams now must prove how they spend the money.

Furthermore, the minimum salary jumps to $500,000; a 26th player can be added for day-night doubleheaders; more players will be eligible to become Super Twos in arbitration; and draft compensation for losing free agents will be limited, creating larger markets for mid-level players.

It's clear big-leaguers are better off with the new deal, and it's also clear the union was a big winner.